Skip to content

· Private foundation

Fred Siegel Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$142k
Granted FY2020
29
Grants FY2020
5
States reached
$25k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Fred Siegel Foundation’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Fred Siegel Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 13 organizations, $142k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

17
’17
17
’18
14
’19
13
’20
0
’21
0
’22
0
’23
0
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Philanthropy$690kReligion$108kEducation$105kHuman Services$102kHealth$101kFood & Nutrition$57kArts & Culture$26kCivil Rights$18kOther$0
02FY2020 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k23 grants · $61k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $81k
$3,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$3.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN JEWISH DISTRIBUTION C$25,000
UNITED JEWISH COMMUNITIES$16,000
MAZON$10,000
SHARE OUR SELVES$10,000
LANA BERKE SILVERMAN SCHOLR FD$10,000
CLEVELAND CLINIC$10,000
MAKE A WISH$5,000
MARCH FIELD MUSEUM$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS$4,000
AIDS SERVICES FOUNDATION$4,000
UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MUSEUM$4,000
JEWISH NATIONAL FUND$3,000
AMYOTROPIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS FOUNDA$3,000
AIDS PROJECT LOS ANGELES$3,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–20, $59k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 32% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES: $5k → 22%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES: $5k → 22%JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES: $5k → 22%SHARE OUR SELVES: $10k → 10%SHARE OUR SELVES: $10k → 10%SHARE OUR SELVES: $10k → 10%SHARE OUR SELVES: $10k → 10%MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH ACCESS: $1k → 14%MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH ACCESS: $1k → 14%MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH ACCESS: $1k → 14%MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH ACCESS: $1k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
NY
IN
OH
CT
CA
VA
NM
DC
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 46% of Fred Siegel Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Fred Siegel Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 5.0% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$576k · 32 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +63% since the first grant, against +36% for those funded once.

32 repeat relationships: 28 still active in FY2020, 4 since wound down. Read against FY2020, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

32
5

Total granted

$576k
$4k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+63%
+36%

Still filing today

41%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20
Human ServicesHealthHousing & ShelterArts & CultureAnimalsCrime & LegalOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • MA
    MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger
    4× · 2017–2020 · $50k · revenue +50%
  • Share Our Selves Corporation
    4× · 2017–2020 · $40k · revenue +63%
  • TU
    The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
    4× · 2017–2020 · $16k · revenue +25%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
  • TL
    THE LEUKEMIA LYMPHOMA SOCIETY
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
  • C1
    CHP 11-99 FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +36%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation

Mission statement: mission: caring for our patients first and our people always. vision: to be the most comprehensive, integrated and connected health system for getting and staying well. values: excellence - we deliver high-quality,…

Health
2
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
3
Jewish Family Service

Mission: Inspired by their history and values, Jewish Family Service supports the needs of Jewish individuals and families, refugees and immigrants, and the broader community to achieve well-being, health, and stability. From food security…

Human Services
4
Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles

Jfsla's mission is to provide life-improving services that help the people of los angeles live with dignity and exercise self-determination. we believe in and strive for a more compassionate los angeles where no one has to navigate life…

Human Services
5
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

To provide high-quality, affordable health care services to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.

Health
6
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
7
Children's Hospital Los Angeles

Promotion and advancement of children's health through patient care, research, and education.

Health
8
Rescue Mission Alliance

The rescue mission alliance's primary purpose is to establish and operate rescue missions to reach the less fortunate with the gospel of jesus christ and to assist in the feeding, clothing, and lodging of those who are destitute or…

Human Services
9
Altamed Health Services Corporation

To eliminate disparities in health care access and outcomes by providing superior quality health and human services through an integrated world-class delivery system for latino, multi-ethnic underserved communities in southern california.

Health
10
American Medical Association Foundation

The ama foundation brings together physicians and communities to improve our nation's health.

—
11
Memorial Health Services

To improve the health and well-being of individuals, families and our communities, by benefiting, performing the functions of and carrying out the purposes of the nonprofit, tax-exempt hospitals and other healthcare providers of which the…

Health
12
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

The organization's mission is to mobilize resources to fight hunger in our community. to fulfill its mission, the food bank:* sources and acquires nutritious food and other products and distribute them to people experiencing nutrition…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Los Angeles Mission Inc; the most unlike its peers is Red Bucket Equine Rescue. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 40 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/19
Grantees still filing
16/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AMERICAN JEWISH DISTRIBUTION C: $100,000 · OtherAMERICAN JEWISH DISTRIBUTION CUNITED JEWISH COMMUNITIES: $64,000 · OtherUNITED JEWISH COMMUNITIESMAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger: $50,000 · OtherMAZON A Jewish Response to HungerLANA BERKE SILVERMAN SCHOLR FD: $40,000 · OtherLANA BERKE SILVERMAN SCHOLR FDMAKE A WISH: $25,000 · OtherCLEVELAND CLINIC: $20,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherWORLD JEWISH CONGRESS: $18,000 · OtherJEWISH FAMILY CHILDRENS SERVICES: $18,000 · Other+22 more: $132,670 · Other+22 moreRenaissance Charitable Foundation Inc: $410,000 · PhilanthropyRenaissance Charitable Foundation In…FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $280,000 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHA…Share Our Selves Corporation: $40,000 · Human ServicesJewish Family Services Inc: $15,000 · Human ServicesMaternal and Child Health Access: $4,000 · Human ServicesPARKINSON'S FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · HealthPROJECT ANGEL FOOD: $7,000 · HealthThe United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: $16,000 · Arts & CultureAMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC: $12,000 · International
Other$487,670Philanthropy$410,000Community Improvement$280,000Human Services$59,000Health$17,000Arts & Culture$16,000International$12,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRenaissance Charitable Foundation Inc: $410,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $280,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger: $50,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetShare Our Selves Corporation: $40,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetThe United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: $16,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetJewish Family Services Inc: $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetAIDS PROJECT LOS ANGELES: $12,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC: $12,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPARKINSON'S FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT ANGEL FOOD: $7,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetRED BUCKET EQUINE RESCUE: $6,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetBEYOND BLINDNESS: $5,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetORANGEWOOD FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetOrange County Rescue Mission Inc: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMaternal and Child Health Access: $4,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCOAST GUARD FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMANZANO DAY SCHOOL: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ↗
  • Who funds MAZON A Jewish Response to Hunger ↗
  • Who funds Share Our Selves Corporation ↗
  • Who funds The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ↗
  • Who funds Jewish Family Services Inc ↗
  • Who funds AIDS PROJECT LOS ANGELES ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD SERVICE INC ↗
  • Who funds PARKINSON'S FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT ANGEL FOOD ↗
  • Who funds RED BUCKET EQUINE RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds BEYOND BLINDNESS ↗
  • Who funds ORANGEWOOD FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES MISSION INC ↗
  • Who funds Orange County Rescue Mission Inc ↗
  • Who funds Maternal and Child Health Access ↗
  • Who funds COAST GUARD FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CHP 11-99 FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MANZANO DAY SCHOOL ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Jpmorgan Chase FoundationNY10.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Fred Siegel Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Fred Siegel Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Fred Siegel Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Fred Siegel Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 40 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Fred Siegel’s filings →

    More from the funding graph